Flying Scotsman

Needing something to read on a trip to London yesterday I bought the current Heritage Railway (came out 9 May) and am quite surprised it hasn’t been mentioned on this thread. It has a very interesting two page piece in the News section about Roland Kennington’s response to the various reports on 4472.

He has been severely criticised on here and elsewhere so it’s no surprise that he has come out fighting. He describes as ‘despicable’ the fact that no-one from the NRM or the Bob Meanley and FCP reports sought his views since “they made considerable statements about what we did in 1999 without any verification from anyone who was involved.”

He goes on to describe various quite technical engineering matters on cylinder sizes and such and the reasons things were done in particular ways. Regarding the centre cylinder vertical misalignment error he says “there is no error, as all LNER axle and cylinder drawings show the centre line passing through a point half an inch above the true position – something which only LNER people seem to know”.

Regarding the 250psi issue, he says it was discussed with quite a number of experienced people and no one advised against it including the VAB, and it made the loco more efficient, capable of running at 70mph on 10% cut-off. He says 4472 ran 30,000 miles between 1999 and 2004 with only one failure which was due to an injector steam valve in 2003. There were no failures with big ends or side rods.

He finishes by saying “one thing is certain; if it is used say 25 times a year (after full overhaul) it will need to be fully stripped down in 10 years’ time, and considerable wear will have taken place, whatever anyone says.”

Obviously I’ve left out much of what he says here, but interesting stuff nevertheless.

Dave

 

I was just sorting through some photos that I took at the NRM in September of 2010 and came across this oddity - It looks like 4472's cab, but has "60008" scrawled on the side. If it is indeed Scotsman's cab, why did they write Dwight D Eisenhower's number on it? Bear in mind that 60008 was still in the US at that time... very odd.

EDIT: I've just noticed what looks like scorching along the front edge of the cab roof and possibly the side, almost as if an A4 cab had had its tapered front sliced off...?

 

What's the point of employing expensive consultants (who are obviously very competent engineers) whose report concerning alignments becomes pretty meaningless without the information imparted by Roland concerning centre lines.
You can't beat experience !

Bob.

 

The information spoken about by Roland is clearly shown on the frame arrangement drawing. Did the Consultants look at it?

 

Is this stated misalignment simply the quoted 1/2" or is it a misalignment from the drawing dimensions? I don't think that has been made clear.

 

I haven't read the Roland Kennington interview but the independent report to the NRM (carried out by Consulting Engineers) which identifies the cylinder problems can be found here:
http://www.nrm.org.uk/aboutus/~/media/Files/NRM/PDF/NRM Flying Scotsman Final Report.pdf

Since I'm not a Mechanical Engineer I will not comment on who might be right or wrong.

 

Something is not quite right here. The engine should be measured again making use of the Doncaster equipment currently owned by the Severn Valley Railway before any more work is carried out. The late Bill Harvey maintained that there was nothing wrong with a Gresley locomotive that following the drawing would not sort out. There is only one way to set the engine up and that is in accordance with best Eastern Region practice and not in accordance with what some interested party believes should be the case - unless, of course, the two happen to be identical. If the NRM are not very careful a great deal of time, money and effort could be expended correcting something that does not require it or, possibly, needs a different and smaller adjustment to that being mooted.

 

That is also the approach recommended by the above referenced report.

 

Read the report but I am still not convinced that due allowace was made for the unique peculiarities of LNE practice. When there is the slightest doubt measure again. Tends to be cheaper that way.

 

Similarly, I don't understand why the report does not seem to make any reference to Riley's who have done a huge amount of work to the boiler and subsequently the frames, would they not be the first port of call to meet with when discussing what has happened but don't appear to have been even spoken to?

 

The report says discussions were held with the Managing Directors of two steam loco repair contractors but they are not named. Various parts of the report are blacked out presumably where details of estimated costs or contractor details etc are best withheld so as not to compromise future tendering or contract negotiations. I reckon this means Rileys have been consulted, but I could be wrong.

 

From another site tender forms have gone to several contractors including the EEC......

 

Thanks. The tender invitation is open to anyone suitably qualified and can be found at:
http://nmsi.mytenders.org/Search/Show/Search_View.aspx?ID=APR086529

If any of the experts on this forum wish to bid you have until tomorrow to request documents/drawings and until 10th June to submit your bid.

 

Think you probably mean the EU rather than the EEC. Doesn't mean that the EU will be tendering(!); it's simply part of the rules of public sector procurement that contracts expected to be over a certain value are advertised across the European Union, so that, for example, a company in - let us say - Meiningen, can't claim discrimination under single market rules that they were prevented from bidding for a contract in - let us say - York by virtue of lack of knowledge.

Tom

 

If there is money to be made then an EU company may well tender. The engine is going to be moved by road again and if Meiningen, for example, put together a very competitive offer then the final rectification could take place abroad. The outcome of this process could prove very interesting.

 

I know in these times of austerity everyone needs work - but it would take a big pair of kahonas to tender for this work and then undertake it. Even if I was (as surely people like Rileys are) super confident in my ability to get the job done, I would be a nervous wreck taking on that project!!

When you read that tender document it seems weird that the NRM are going to pay the person who is awarded the work to shunt the locomotive into their own carpark area - or did I misinterpret that? Also, surely insuring any craning operations to £5m is going to be a touch pricey to pay out for before the job is completed?!

 

One hopes in the scope of work, the legals don't get the tender behind confused with the tender document and the tender specs with the tender spec

 

That's why you include the cost of this within your proposal as part of the job.
If you can't afford a £5mn insurance policy, should you be doing the job ?

 

And of course in Germany (and Austria and parts of Switzerland and a few other small areas), "tenderlok" = Tank engine, just to further confuse the "tender" documents?!?

I'll get my coat..........

Steven

 

I insure my racing boat for £3mn third party, and it costs me 50 quid a year, so you mustn't assume that insurance for that sort of figure is necessarilly going to be megabucks. Depends how the Insurance co sees the risks. But admittedly I see the premium for insurance against a loco being dropped off a crane as being a little more than that. Presumably the Freightliner group would have plenty of knowledge on the subject...